Time has sped up — a year flew by like a rocket. And now the Fiery Horse of 2026 has already galloped in. What will it bring, Ukrainians in particular? As a U.S. citizen originally from Ukraine, I care deeply about both countries — especially since Ukraine’s fate depends significantly on its relationship with the United States. And the United States, in turn, shapes global processes and trends.
So what can we expect from this Horse, if the defining trend of the past year — the Snake — was serpentine twistiness and near-total unpredictability, so characteristic of the governing style of the 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump? Yet that unpredictability is only apparent at first glance. In reality, Trump has a very particular vision of both the U.S. and the world. Nearly a year has passed in complex maneuvering to find one’s place within that vision — and thus establish mutually beneficial relations with Trump.
Ukraine had to travel a road that felt like a roller coaster — from “I’ll stop Biden’s war in 24 hours” to the U.S.’s reluctant entry into the “coalition of the willing.”
“You Have No Cards”
From the start of his campaign, Trump claimed he would stop the war in Ukraine “in 24 hours,” drawing in a large number of Ukrainians, including U.S. citizens of Ukrainian descent who made a significant contribution to his victory. It seems those voters heard nothing but that promise from a candidate for the highest office in a country that determines the fate of at least half the world and is irreplaceable in securing Ukraine’s fate. Because if those voters had listened more carefully to Trump’s speeches, they would have noticed that he never once named the aggressor in this war and never once identified the victim — who refused to submit and is resisting desperately. He never once mentioned who is responsible for countless war crimes against an entire nation, effectively removing the question of accountability for aggression and atrocities. He did not even speak in terms of “victory and defeat,” consistently equating the “two sides of the conflict” whom he, Trump, must somehow reconcile.
In this way, Trump shifted the war into an entirely different paradigm from what it is in essence: instead of forcing Russia to end its aggression, he took on the role of mediator between warring sides.
Trump also immediately moved the main burden of supporting Ukraine onto Europe — “this is Europe’s business, and we’re across the ocean.” Free U.S. weapons deliveries to Ukraine were replaced by European countries purchasing U.S. arms and then transferring them to Ukraine. “Ramstein” ceased to exist.
Moreover, once in the president’s chair, he repeatedly called this war “Biden’s war” — as if “had I been president then, the war would never have started.”
Ukraine had no choice but to accept the new rules of the game. Trump presented demands to a bleeding state: repay the money supposedly wasted by his predecessor on free military and financial support to Ukraine. Thus emerged a business deal with Ukraine, under which Ukraine committed to repaying this “debt” after the war through concessions related to its rare-earth mineral deposits.
At the first meeting of the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents at the White House on February 28, 2025, where this agreement was to be signed, Volodymyr Zelensky still tried to convince Trump that the U.S. interest lies in Russia’s defeat. That attempt ended in a scandal the White House had not seen in a long time: Ukraine, in Trump’s words, “has no cards” to pursue victory. So there is nothing left but to dutifully follow the path you are being led down, not lecture the “elders,” and instead thank them for help (as if Ukrainians aren’t grateful!).
Zelensky endured the blow with dignity, but it became clear that relations had to be fundamentally restructured.
Ukraine-U.S.: From a Values-Based Struggle to the Search for Mutually Beneficial Deals
First of all, the circumstances created by Trump’s arrival in the White House forced Ukraine to realize: unlike the foundation of U.S. support under Biden — grounded in an effort to preserve the world order established after World War II — Trump’s foundation is based on seeking mutually beneficial deals, not only with Ukraine as an ally but also with Russia, which de facto has almost ceased to be considered an adversary of the U.S.
For the first time since the start of the full-scale war, the U.S. voted at the UN against a resolution condemning Russia’s aggression against Ukraine — ending up in the same “company” as Iran, Belarus, China, and, of course, Russia itself. At the same time, Trump began calling the Russian dictator — bringing him out of isolation. Trump offered his counterpart all kinds of business proposals, again related to natural resources. “Just stop killing people, dear Mr. Vladimir!” Trump made only one demand of the Kremlin: stop the fighting right on the line of contact, sign a ceasefire. Trump was even willing to recognize Crimea as Russian (forgetting that in 2017, as the 45th U.S. president, he signed into law a bill passed by Congress committing the U.S. to defend Ukraine’s territorial integrity; and in 2018, then – Secretary of State Mike Pompeo officially affirmed Crimea as part of Ukraine). Правда, this attempt was immediately rejected through joint efforts of Ukrainian and American diplomacy.
The first attempt at a low-level meeting between American and Russian delegations for consultations in Istanbul produced only one benefit: a large-scale prisoner exchange — one thousand for one thousand.
Despite Trump’s generous promises, Putin did not stop the war for even a moment. Nevertheless, Trump appointed a courier between the U.S. and Russia — businessman Steve Witkoff, who has considerable business interests with Russian oligarchs in the U.S.
Further diplomacy proceeded along two parallel tracks: U.S.-Ukraine and U.S.-Russia. The climax was Trump’s meeting with Putin on American soil — in Anchorage, Alaska’s capital. There were clearly some nonpublic understandings, because after Alaska Putin’s behavior and the direction of negotiations changed dramatically. Trump stopped demanding that Putin first cease fire and only then negotiate peace. From then on, negotiations have taken place against the backdrop of war, and Trump stopped even condemning particularly brutal bombings of Ukrainian cities by Russian ballistic and cruise missiles (in spring 2025, he at least condemned those — but “Vladimir” paid no attention).
Europe Enters the Process
It is entirely possible that Trump would have forced Ukraine into capitulation by cutting off intelligence sharing and weapons supplies — if European countries and the EU as a whole had not entered the process. Finally realizing the danger posed by an aggressive Russia if Ukraine fell, European states began building their own line of relations with Trump, using complex maneuvers to prevent him from abandoning Ukraine and the European continent. European countries — joined by Canada, Japan, and Turkey — formed with Ukraine a so-called “coalition of the resolute” (also called the “coalition of the willing,” since coalition of the willing can be translated both ways) to support Ukraine.
They repeatedly supported Ukraine whenever Trump tried to appease the Russian dictator too much. The most significant help came when Russia tried to push onto Trump its “peace plan” of 28 points. Ukraine and European countries stepped in — and 28 points became 20, a more or less acceptable compromise for Ukraine. Only two points remain unacceptable for Ukraine: Russia’s demand that Ukraine withdraw from the entire Donetsk region, even from the part Russia has not occupied; and the clause about the occupied Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. Russia demands “shared management” by Russia, Ukraine, and the U.S.; Ukraine, of course, will not agree to any Russian presence.
By the end of the year, a working version of the peace plan had taken clear shape. Ukraine, the U.S., and Europe agreed on 90% of it. Only these two “disputed” issues remain — issues Ukraine, of course, will not accept.
To somehow move out of this dead end, Zelensky said he would put these issues to an all-Ukrainian referendum. However, under Ukraine’s Constitution, referendums are prohibited during martial law — and on territorial issues they are prohibited altogether. Therefore, the counter-demand is made to Russia: cease fire to create conditions for a referendum.
Russia currently rejects the plan and continues the war without any condemnation from Trump. He did not condemn even the most barbaric and brazen mass strikes on energy infrastructure in Ukrainian cities with ballistic missiles, happening nightly during winter cold, with the clear aim of freezing Ukrainians into submission.
So what is the 47th U.S. president trying to achieve in his self-appointed role as mediator in the largest European war since World War II? The short answer: this war is not his strategic goal, and he cannot admit his own inability to fulfill his promise — because, it seems, he does not fully grasp why this “overseas” war is within the field of U.S. national interests.
He cannot, because he does not think within any system at all — and this becomes clear when we look at the broader context of his foreign policy.
Tectonic Shocks in the World
Trade Wars
The White House’s turbulent activity reached far beyond U.S. borders. By imposing tariffs on several dozen countries (tellingly, Russia is absent from the list and Ukraine is present!), trade wars were launched with almost the entire world. This led to sharp stock market swings and a steep rise in prices for food and consumer goods. Mass public discontent forced the White House to conduct trade wars in an extremely inconsistent manner — introducing tariffs, then postponing them.
The most inconsistent policy was toward China. By threatening “hellish” tariffs of 200%, Trump met resistance: China announced a boycott of U.S. soybean imports. Soy cultivation in the U.S. is concentrated largely in “Republican” states, and farmers are one of Trump’s core voting blocs. Thus the White House was forced into an arrangement with Xi Jinping, and the trade war was partially paused.
The trade war against EU countries has also been slowed — though not fully stopped.
These trade wars, reminiscent of a roller coaster, undermined trust in the U.S. in the worst economic sense — as a reliable partner — lowering its credibility rating.
Focus on the Western Hemisphere: Venezuela and Greenland
At the same time, the center of U.S. foreign policy rapidly reoriented from Euro-Atlantic and Asian directions toward the “Western Hemisphere.” This is partly justified: U.S. policy had not paid sufficient attention to a region neighboring the U.S., and the vacuum was filled by China and Russia. Trump proclaimed a radical change in approach to this region.
Drug cartels operating in Central and South American countries were designated terrorists. Military-political operations aimed at Venezuela began: boats were shot at that, according to U.S. officials, carried fentanyl or other narcotics (over 100 people died in these operations), though convincing evidence was not provided.
The new year began with a lightning special operation in Venezuela. On the night of January 3, within a matter of hours, the U.S. Air Force and special forces captured dictator-president Nicolás Maduro and his wife from their residence and brought them to New York, where they will face trial on narcoterrorism charges.
At the same time, Trump pardoned the former president of Honduras, who had been sentenced by a U.S. court to 40 years in prison for aiding drug cartels (though this occurred under Biden’s presidency).
Europe Awakens
Trump constantly leveled claims against the EU and the United Kingdom, effectively accusing them of “losing their identity” and of “weakness.” Declaring that “Europe must defend itself,” Trump personally and the White House systematically pushed Europe away—betraying the U.S.’s most important strategic ally at a moment of growing threat from Russia. Meanwhile, Trump continually sought to appease the Russian dictator.
European states—especially those bordering Russia — realized: the U.S. is at least stepping aside, and therefore it is vital to build their own system of defense against a potential Russian attack, which no longer seemed impossible.
Ukraine, having demonstrated unexpected strength and determination in resisting a full-scale war against a nuclear power, came to be seen by those European countries as a necessary part of a new European defense system.
Therefore, it was easy for Trump to reach an agreement with Europe on purchasing weapons for Ukraine, and the main suppliers of Western arms to Ukraine became NATO countries without U.S. financial participation. Since then, two parallel negotiation processes have continued — Russia-U.S. and Ukraine-U.S. — resembling a ping-pong game, where the “ball” alternates between Russia and Ukraine. A draft peace plan has been developed, one Ukraine cannot fully accept (it includes giving up territories in Donetsk region) and Russia rejects outright, because Putin currently wants to continue the war at any cost.
The White House’s constant pushing away of Europe, on the one hand, and Russia’s provocative actions against European states, on the other, forced Europe to rapidly and fundamentally shift from a policy of de facto pacifism (which the U.S. itself had fostered by serving as Europe’s security guarantor against the USSR and then Russia — and this unity maintained peace in the Euro-Atlantic space until now) to accelerated rearmament. European countries found a kind of modus vivendi between rebuilding their own defense capacity and a complex diplomatic game with Trump aimed at restraining him: from abandoning Europe and Ukraine; from flirting with the Russian dictator; from supporting far-right populist politicians gaining ground in elections across several European countries.
However, Trump’s attempts to seize Greenland could split Europe and Putin’s sweet dream! — lead to NATO’s collapse. (Does Trump truly not see the difference between Venezuela, where a regime hostile to the U.S. did rule — based on drug trafficking and socialism — and Denmark, a long-standing U.S. ally and one of NATO’s founding states?)
What Will 2026 Bring?
Trying to predict the actions of a leader as fond of unpredictable — often lightning — moves as the 47th president is a thankless task. Still, the continuation of key trends is coming into view.
From the standpoint of how the current situation will shape processes in the U.S. and the world, developments will revolve around three fundamental factors: the “Trump spiral,” the worldview of his core electorate, and the overall political situation in the U.S., which will be determined by the campaign for the midterm elections and their results — the balance of Democrats and Republicans in the next Congress.
The “Trump spiral,” which began during his first term, is defined by an intensifying struggle between him and his supporters on one side and his political opponents on the other. It will tighten further.
Attempts to push the boundaries of executive power by further narrowing what the judiciary is allowed to do will continue and even expand — along with judicial resistance to Trump’s attempts to break the political system of checks and balances. Legal proceedings against political opponents will continue, though the final outcomes are impossible to predict at this stage.
Whether the legislative branch can impose checks and balances on Trump will depend on the election campaign that will determine the composition of Congress in November. The central question of this year’s campaign is so-called “affordability” — the purchasing power of the middle class and low-income Americans, living standards, day-to-day costs for voters, as well as challenges for small and medium-sized businesses. This could unite the left and centrist wings of the Democratic Party and push Trump to slow trade wars and pay more attention to voters.
If Democrats win a majority in at least one chamber of Congress (most likely the House), future policy — both domestic and foreign — will depend heavily on the balance between leftists and centrists; however, checks and balances on the White House will be restored in any case.
This will further intensify “political wars.” Trump will do everything he can to shake the system and push the boundaries of presidential power. He will be driven not only by his desire to remake the U.S. and the world to his preferences, but also by a sense of personal danger in the event of a Democratic victory (he remembers well what obstacles he faced during his first term and how it ended for him personally). Other branches of government will increase resistance to Trump’s attempts to turn the U.S. into a dictatorship (some Democrats and Republicans will also be motivated by a sense of personal danger if the system is destroyed). The final outcome of these wars is impossible to predict for now, because both sides feel their strength and are ready to continue confrontation.
In foreign policy, shocks will only grow. The successful U.S. operation in Venezuela, involving the capture of its dictator, already raises fundamental questions: what next? Commentators are already asking: can (and does) Trump want to bring Venezuela to democracy? He has shown a clear reluctance to allow the de facto winner of the last presidential election, María Machado — winner of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize — to lead the country (Trump claimed that Machado is “unpopular among the Venezuelan people”!). As of now, Venezuela’s entire government remains in power except for Maduro; his place was taken by Vice President Delcy Rodríguez. She began her career under Hugo Chávez and always faithfully carried out her superiors’ will. She has already condemned Maduro’s capture and demands his return. Trump issued her a stern warning, threatening “further actions” if she does not cooperate with the U.S.
Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio proclaim that the U.S. will “run Venezuela” until conditions are created for a “smooth and fair transition of power.” Have Trump and his circle decided to replace Venezuela’s left dictatorship with a right-wing one led by their own protégé? Will the people of Venezuela accept it? Could the country descend into civil war?
The operation against Maduro further split the Republican Party into isolationists and neo-imperialists, now led by Trump.
Trump and Rubio openly proclaim they want to “get back the oil” “stolen from us by Maduro’s regime.” This means: the new leaders of the country, whoever they are, must ensure access to oil fields (Venezuela has the world’s largest reserves) for American corporations. But those fields require a thorough rebuilding and modernization that will take years and billions in investment. Will conditions for such investment emerge?
How will the Venezuelan operation affect Ukraine’s position? In a dual way. On the one hand, more oil will enter the global market, and prices will start falling rapidly. This could, eventually, wreck Russia’s economy — or at least significantly limit its ability to finance the war. On the other hand, it could further inflame the Russian dictator’s sense of personal danger, increase his aggressiveness toward the West — and thus toward Ukraine.
For us, the Ukrainian community in the U.S., it is essential to quickly and thoroughly prepare for the very likely need to defend the rights of our war refugees to remain here — at minimum, to secure an extension of Temporary Protected Status, which may not be easy given the White House’s immigration policy.
We also must strengthen advocacy for Ukraine — against the backdrop of a shift of primary attention to Venezuela and, possibly, other countries in Central and South America (future plans may include Cuba and perhaps Panama, though Panama’s political situation is relatively stable). It is critically important not to let Ukraine be “forgotten,” not to allow the appeasement of the Russian dictator, and not to permit attempts to undermine European unity.
Overall, if this 2026 horse doesn’t set the world on fire, it will certainly take all of us at a gallop through the roller coaster of American politics.
Author: Nadiya Banchyk
